Borjal v.

Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 126466, January 14, 1999

Facts:
Arturo Borjal and Maximo Soliven are among the incorporators of PTI, now PhilSTAR Daily,
Inc., owner of The Philippine Star, at the time of the complaint was filed, where Borjal is
President and Soliven is Publisher and Chairman of the Editorial Board. Borjal also runs the
column Jaywalker. Around that time, the First National Conference on Land Transportation
(FNCLT) was organized. Its objective was to draft an omnibus bill that would embody a
long-term land transportation policy for presentation to Congress. The conference was
estimated to cost around Php1,815,000, which would be funded through solicitations from
various sponsors On 28 February 1989, at the organizational meeting of the FNCLT, private
respondent Francisco Wenceslao was elected Executive Director. As such, he wrote numerous
solicitation letters to the business community for the support of the conference.

Between May and July 1989 a series of articles written by petitioner Borjal was published on
different dates in his column Jaywalker. The articles dealt with the alleged anomalous activities
of an "organizer of a conference" without naming or identifying private respondent. Neither did it
refer to the FNCLT as the conference therein mentioned.

Issue: Whether or not the disputed articles constitute privileged communications as to exempt
the author from liability.

Ruling:
No. A privileged communication may be either absolutely privileged or qualifiedly privileged.
Absolutely privileged communications are those which are not actionable even if the author has
acted in bad faith.

Indisputably, petitioner Borjal's questioned writings are not within the exceptions of Art. 354 of
The Revised Penal Code for, as correctly observed by the appellate court, they are neither
private communications nor fair and true report without any comments or remarks. However this
does not necessarily mean that they are not privileged. Court ruled that publications which are
privileged for reasons of public policy are protected by the constitutional guarantee of freedom
of speech. This constitutional right cannot be abolished by the mere failure of the legislature to
give it express recognition in the statute punishing libels. The rule on privileged communications
had its genesis not in the nation's penal code but in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution
guaranteeing freedom of speech and of the press. 19 As early as 1918, in United States v.
Cañete,20 this Court ruled that publications which are privileged for reasons of public policy are
protected by the constitutional guaranty of freedom of speech. This constitutional right cannot
be abolished by the mere failure of the legislature to give it express recognition in the statute
punishing libels.